Protocol Synthesis with Dialogue Structure Theory

  • Jarred McGinnis
  • David Robertson
  • Chris Walton
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4049)


Inspired by computational linguistic approaches to annotate the structures that occur in human dialogue, this paper describes a technique which encodes these structures as transformations applied to a protocol language. Agents can have a controlled and verifiable mechanism to synthesise and communicate their interaction protocol during their participation in a multiagent system. This is in contrast to the approaches where agents must subscribe to a fixed protocol and relinquish control over an interaction that may not satisfy the agent’s dialogical needs or rely on internal its reasoning to determine which message to communicate at a certain point in the dialogue.


Multiagent System Agent Communication Interaction Protocol Dialogue Game Protocol Synthesis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aristotle: Topics. Clarendon Press (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Georgeff, M., Pell, B., Pollack, M.E., Tambe, M., Wooldridge, M.J.: The belief-desire-intention model of agency. In: Rao, A.S., Singh, M.P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) ATAL 1998. LNCS, vol. 1555, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Finin, T., Fritzson, R., McKay, D., McEntire, R.: KQML as an Agent Communication Language. In: Adam, N., Bhargava, B., Yesha, Y. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 1994), Gaithersburg, MD, USA, pp. 456–463. ACM Press, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singh, M.P.: A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Dignum, F., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modeling dialogues using argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS 2000), p. 31. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bratman, M.: Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Havard University Press (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Searle, J.: Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walton, D., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Core, M.G., Allen, J.F.: Coding dialogues with the DAMSL annotation scheme. In: Traum, D. (ed.) Working Notes: AAAI Fall Symposium on Communicative Action in Humans and Machines, pp. 28–35. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Asher, N., Gillies, A.: Common ground, corrections and coordination. Argumentation 17, 481–512 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Searle, J.: (on) Searle on Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rao, A.S.: AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In: van Hoe, R. (ed.) Seventh European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, Eindhoven, The Netherlands (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rovatsos, M.: Computational Interaction Frames. PhD thesis, Department of Informatics, Technical University of Munich (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rickard, P.: A History of the French Language. Routledge, UK (1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robertson, D.: Multi-agent coordination as distributed logic programming. In: Demoen, B., Lifschitz, V. (eds.) ICLP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3132, pp. 416–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lambert, D., Robertson, D.: Matchmaking multi-party interactions using historical performance data. In: AAMAS, pp. 611–617 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassan, F., Robertson, D., Walton, C.: Addressing constraint failures in an agent interaction protocol. In: Proceedings of the 8th Pacific Rim International Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, Kuala Lumpur (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ginzburg, J.: Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In: Seligman, J., Westerståhl, D. (eds.) Logic, Language, and Computation, pp. 221–237. CSLI, Stanford (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 394–401. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11, 315–334 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGinnis, J., Robertson, D.: Realizing agent dialogues with distributed protocols. In: van Eijk, R.M., Huget, M.-P., Dignum, F.P.M. (eds.) AC 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3396, pp. 106–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jarred McGinnis
    • 1
  • David Robertson
    • 1
  • Chris Walton
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Intelligent Systems and ApplicationsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations